One of my chief arguments about the contemporary superhero
movie (for all intents and purposes, the biggest current subgenre of
blockbuster) is that it was sexless. In capturing the essence of these
characters as action figures, they were rendered mostly sexless: even famous
tomcat Iron Man is wedded to monogamy in the films with Pepper Potts (who, in
the comics, actually married Stark bodyguard Happy Hogan for a brief while).
But there was also a big of a progressive movement to ignore that these films
were aimed primarily at a male audience, toning down the feminine sexuality on
display. Females were still considered second citizens in these films, but it
was more along the lines of Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) in “Captain America:
The First Avenger,” a shit-kicker in military wear brandishing a gun and owning
a slinky dress only for practical purposes.
But a friend showed me a photoset posted online that caught
my eye. It was comprised of gifs featuring the male stars of the Marvel Universe
films, in moments of their films where they are in various states of undress.
It’s a good enough way to explain the unprecedented crossover success of “The
Avengers”: here were beefcake/sensitive images of conventionally
handsome-to-completely gorgeous men, emphasized for what I now realized were a
female audience. Granted, male filmgoers have always wanted to see their heroes
muscle-bound and raring to go, but it was usually in service of wanton
brutality. But the stars of the onscreen Marvel films were hunks you could take
home to mom: in particular, one of the money shots from the trailer to “Captain
America” is Carter absentmindedly realizing she’s actually fondling one of Cap’s
pecs. Yes, it’s a period movie, but you’d really only see that in a
contemporary film.
It’s curious how the ratings board has determined well in
advance that titillation was unacceptable for men, but undefined for women,
leading to such images reaching the mainstream. Because of the more primitive
sexuality of men, it makes some dunderheaded sense that all genitals and
breasts of women would be frowned upon. But to assume that a man’s genitals
served the same function is even more reductive of women’s sexuality. Never
mind the bare breast issue: Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth are shirtless and
the camera loves them in “Captain America” and “Thor.” Call to mind “Thor,”
which also features Natalie Portman, Kat Dennings and Jaimie Alexander, three
gorgeous women, bundled up and heavily de-sexualized.
What I think this is doing is exhibiting a more evolved view
of sexuality, one which hopefully leads to ideas like “ratings boards” and
cries of censorship obsolete. On one hand, the women of “Thor” are immensely
appealing: Portman and Dennings are scientists, and while kept under the wing
of a professor played by Stellan Skarsgaard, their intellect and sense of humor
are conventionally attractive, not to mention their model-ready appearances we’ve
come to know through ads and magazine spreads already. The lesser-known
Alexander, meanwhile, is slender, tough-minded, and assertive, all traits that
make her a marvel of a character as Sif: there’s no reason to think she wouldn’t
be alluring.
Consider someone like Marlon Wayans, who wrote, directed and
starred in the juvenile horror spoof “A Haunted House” earlier this year. While
the film is aggressively unpleasant and not very funny, there was something
that, as a heterosexual man, struck me right off the bat: Marlon Wayans is an
EXTREMELY handsome man with a stellar physique*. What’s interesting is that,
with Wayans as the sole creative voice in this picture, many of the jokes are
predicted on Wayans disrobing and being placed in a compromising or awkward
position, his washboard abs and firm buttocks exposed to the audience for the
sake of a gag. Comparatively, Wayans’ conventionally-attractive wife in the
film is constantly made up to look unattractive in the moment, wearing sweats,
nighttime medication makeup (ladies, I confess I don’t know what you call this)
and displaying masculine attributes in moments like her showdown with a ghost,
leading her to bellow, “I JUST KICKED YOU IN YO’ GHOST BALLS!”
When Wayans came out to speak to the audience afterwards,
there was cheering, but there was also a definite amount of female catcalls. He
took it all in stride, which is to say he encouraged it like a hound dog,
flirting with each and every female in the crowd. Later during a press event,
this continued, and given that his flirtations were tempered by his humor and
the fact that he was a very handsome man, no one seemed to find it lecherous or
unwelcome. In regards to the film, did Wayans know he was playing to a female
fan base? Or was he blithely acknowledging the time-honored tradition that a
barely-clad or naked man was always somewhat humorous? And if it’s the first,
what to make of a subplot about the second most prominent female in the film
and her intense desire to host a “Mandingo Party”? Questions, Marlon Wayans.
You raise questions.
My mind also gravitated towards Wayans in regards to “G.I.
Joe: Retaliation,”*** which weirdly ignores Wayans’ presence in the first film.
As a fan of that idiotic-but-entertaining first effort, I confess I was asking,
“Where’s Ripcord? Where’s Scarlett?” at least for the sake of continuity. But I
soon realized it was also a product of this contemporary new sexuality. There
are three moments where Lady Jaye (Adrianne Palicki) is observed by the camera
in a way that asserts her alluring conventional beauty: two where she’s in “disguise”
(with one butt close-up) and one where she’s changing her clothes (into casual
nightwear, so not conventionally titillating, but… c’mon, director Jon Chu).
But the moments aren’t too egregious, particularly when matched (in a positive
way) against her noted skill in combat and (in a negative way) her more
off-putting father figure issues put to bed by a sleepwalking Bruce Willis.
But then you notice model-perfect Byung-Hun Lee as villain
Storm Shadow, a character who in the source material is almost constantly
masked and clothed. He very clearly died in the first film, but because “G.I.
Joe” he is now alive again, and shirtless and sweaty even more times, the
camera clearly loving his oiled-up abs. In a film with considerable beefcake,
he’s by far the number one attraction, a decision that likely explains the character’s
shift to the good guys, which I understand is not strictly canon. Along with
the bromatic relationship with married-with-children Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson)
and babysitter-on-call Duke (Channing Tatum), another alluring element for the
female audience, and it’s hard to say this demographic is not being served. As
far as appealing to men and women, “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” is just another in a
long line of blockbusters ensuring equal-opportunity objectification of men and
women. As far as the sex roles in the contemporary studio film, where will this
take us? Honestly, I’m quite excited to find out.
*I’ve been trying to come up with a name for this: there are
so many films where actors play mild-mannered men with casual lifestyles,
except that the actor has a physique courtesy of some recent blockbuster they’ve
done. Examples are Aaron Eckhart doing suburban drama “Rabbit Hole” with his “Battle:
Los Angeles” biceps, Ryan Reynolds as regular dad in “The Amityville Horror”
sporting “Blade: Trinity” abs and Marlon Wayans apparently holding onto his “G.I.
Joe: The Rise Of Cobra” musculature years later.
**The theory has always been that there’s nothing funny at
all about an in-shape man. See: Joe Piscopo, Ryan Reynolds.
***I’m full of the desire to discuss this film, but it may
have to be conversationally, due to the amounts of “pew pew!” and “zzzzaaaam
pow wap!” I would be verbalizing.
No comments:
Post a Comment